[ghc-steering-committee] Proposal #638: Prefix form for MkSolo# (Recommend Accept)
Matthías Páll Gissurarson
mpg at mpg.is
Sun Apr 14 18:27:03 UTC 2024
The amendment has been accepted, with the minor alternative left for a
future amendment.
On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 at 18:22, Simon Peyton Jones <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor
> alternative to a future proposal?
>
>
> yes
>
> Simon
>
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 at 22:19, Matthías Páll Gissurarson <mpg at mpg.is> wrote:
>
>> There seems to be general consensus to accept the amendment, apart from
>> Simon's comment on a minor alternative.
>>
>> Simon, are you OK with accepting the amendment, and leaving the minor
>> alternative to a future proposal?
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 22:08, Adam Gundry <adam at well-typed.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also agree that we should accept. We need some name for the unit
>>> unboxed tuple data constructor, and MkSolo# seems to fit with what we
>>> currently have.
>>>
>>> Simon's suggestion that we rethink the naming of the tuple type
>>> constructors seems to be a separate question. I think it warrants a new
>>> proposal/amendment if anyone feels strongly enough, rather than blocking
>>> this proposal, especially given that the original proposal's type names
>>> are already implemented.
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/03/2024 10:33, Matthías Páll Gissurarson wrote:
>>> > I agree with the sentiment here, having Type0 and Type1 as the
>>> canonical
>>> > names would have been preferable in the original proposal.
>>> > However, this amendment doesn't touch on that: it only changes the
>>> > constructor.
>>> >
>>> > We'd still want MkSolo# even if Solo was the synonym, due to the
>>> > ambiguity described in the amendment.
>>> > Renaming the canonical types would be a further, separate amendment to
>>> > the original proposal.
>>> >
>>> > I believe we should accept the amendment, and consider a
>>> > separate amendment later.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:49, Simon Peyton Jones
>>> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the
>>> > constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yes. I was questioning the proposal itself rather than the
>>> amendment.
>>> >
>>> > S
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:43, Arnaud Spiwack
>>> > <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Unless I'm misreading, the proposal is only about the
>>> > constructors' name. Which you don't propose to change, do you?
>>> >
>>> > (that being said, I think I agree with your comment that the
>>> > name of the type ought to have been `Tuple1`, it'd make more
>>> sense)
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 10:38, Simon Peyton Jones
>>> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com
>>> > <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Well this proposal deepens the commitment to an exception
>>> > for Solo and Solo#. But I'm not really objecting, just
>>> asking.
>>> >
>>> > Simon
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 09:34, Arnaud Spiwack
>>> > <arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io <mailto:arnaud.spiwack at tweag.io>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In favour.
>>> >
>>> > Simon: I don't think your objection pertains to this
>>> > particular proposal amendment, does it? Rather it's a
>>> > further change to the original proposal that you'd like
>>> > to see.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 at 11:48, Simon Peyton Jones
>>> > <simon.peytonjones at gmail.com
>>> > <mailto:simon.peytonjones at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Thanks Matthias
>>> >
>>> > I'm generally supportive, but please see my comment
>>> > exploring a minor alternative
>>> > <
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638#issuecomment-1988147639
>>> >.
>>> >
>>> > Simon
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 00:12, Matthías Páll
>>> > Gissurarson <mpg at mpg.is <mailto:mpg at mpg.is>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Greetings committee!
>>> >
>>> > In
>>> > [proposal #638](
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638 <
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/638>),
>>> > @int-index proposes that we introduce a prefix
>>> > form of MkSolo#, and apparent oversight in
>>> > proposal #475 [Non-punning list and tuple
>>> > syntax](
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475 <
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/475>).
>>> >
>>> > Previously, you would write `(# a #)` to
>>> > construct a `Solo# a`.
>>> > But the question is: what would be the prefix
>>> > form of this constructor?
>>> > It can't be `(# #)`, because this is already
>>> > defined as a constructor of `Unit#`!
>>> >
>>> > This amendment proposes the `MkSolo#`
>>> > constructor, having us write `MkSolo# a` for
>>> the
>>> > prefix form. The discussion seems unanimous,
>>> > after care was taken to clarify that a fully
>>> > applied `MkSolo# a` would still be pretty
>>> > printed as `(# a #)`, avoiding programmer
>>> confusion.
>>> >
>>> > It seems quite straightforward to me, so:
>>> >
>>> > I recommend accepting this amendment to #475.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Adam Gundry, Haskell Consultant
>>> Well-Typed LLP, https://www.well-typed.com/
>>>
>>> Registered in England & Wales, OC335890
>>> 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX, England
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ghc-steering-committee mailing list
>> ghc-steering-committee at haskell.org
>> https://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-steering-committee
>>
>
--
-- Matthías Páll Gissurarson <http://mpg.is/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-steering-committee/attachments/20240414/6695831e/attachment.html>
More information about the ghc-steering-committee
mailing list